Department of Management

Do Patents Alleged to be "Overly-broad" and of "Dubious Validity" Retard Innovation?

Research output: Contribution to conferencePaperResearchpeer-review

Standard

Do Patents Alleged to be "Overly-broad" and of "Dubious Validity" Retard Innovation? / Howells, John; Katznelson, Ron.

2021. 1-40 Paper presented at Academy of Management Annual Meeting, United States.

Research output: Contribution to conferencePaperResearchpeer-review

Harvard

Howells, J & Katznelson, R 2021, 'Do Patents Alleged to be "Overly-broad" and of "Dubious Validity" Retard Innovation?', Paper presented at Academy of Management Annual Meeting, United States, 30/07/2021 - 03/08/2021 pp. 1-40. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2801309

APA

Howells, J., & Katznelson, R. (Accepted/In press). Do Patents Alleged to be "Overly-broad" and of "Dubious Validity" Retard Innovation?. 1-40. Paper presented at Academy of Management Annual Meeting, United States. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2801309

CBE

Howells J, Katznelson R. 2021. Do Patents Alleged to be "Overly-broad" and of "Dubious Validity" Retard Innovation?. Paper presented at Academy of Management Annual Meeting, United States. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2801309

MLA

Howells, John and Ron Katznelson Do Patents Alleged to be "Overly-broad" and of "Dubious Validity" Retard Innovation?. Academy of Management Annual Meeting, 30 Jul 2021, United States, Paper, 2021. 40 p. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2801309

Vancouver

Howells J, Katznelson R. Do Patents Alleged to be "Overly-broad" and of "Dubious Validity" Retard Innovation?. 2021. Paper presented at Academy of Management Annual Meeting, United States. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2801309

Author

Howells, John ; Katznelson, Ron. / Do Patents Alleged to be "Overly-broad" and of "Dubious Validity" Retard Innovation?. Paper presented at Academy of Management Annual Meeting, United States.40 p.

Bibtex

@conference{ba0aa5b6ef2243238a737db7efd00faf,
title = "Do Patents Alleged to be {"}Overly-broad{"} and of {"}Dubious Validity{"} Retard Innovation?",
abstract = "A current refrain in patent policy discourse is that “overly-broad” patents of “dubious validity” retard innovation. We briefly review expressions of the thesis to show that they reduce to the allegation that disagreements over enforceable patent scope and/or validity harm innovation. The Selden automobile patent is alleged to have been such a patent. We review the evidence of commercial development during the Selden patent term and show that although there was disagreement as to the scope and validity of Selden{\textquoteright}s patent claims, there is no evidence that innovation was retarded. We show that Henry Ford and others relied on “freedom to operate” analyses of the Selden patent claims that unambiguously demonstrated their narrow scope. We reexamine archival evidence and cite new primary sources, in particular the legal Opinion given to Ford on the Selden patent to provide a more accurate account than hitherto published of how Ford made his analysis. It was this analysis embodied in the legal Opinion that gave the Ford Motor Company the confidence to publicly indemnify all its customers from infringement liability. Suit for infringement of the Selden patent was brought against the Company, and Ford ultimately prevailed. The Selden patent was licensed, not to create a patent pool, cross-licensing agreement or cartel, but a “patent enforcement collective”; the Selden case should be known as the exemplary instance of how freedom-to-operate analysis can provide the confidence to invest and develop business.",
keywords = "Overly-broad patent, dubious validity, bad patents, Freedom to Operate analysis, Selden, Ford, Ford Motor Co., automobile, ALAM, Brayton, gas-engine, Otto",
author = "John Howells and Ron Katznelson",
year = "2021",
month = apr,
day = "2",
doi = "https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2801309",
language = "English",
pages = "1--40",
note = "Academy of Management Annual Meeting ; Conference date: 30-07-2021 Through 03-08-2021",
url = "https://aom.org/events/annual-meeting/registering-and-attending",

}

RIS

TY - CONF

T1 - Do Patents Alleged to be "Overly-broad" and of "Dubious Validity" Retard Innovation?

AU - Howells, John

AU - Katznelson, Ron

PY - 2021/4/2

Y1 - 2021/4/2

N2 - A current refrain in patent policy discourse is that “overly-broad” patents of “dubious validity” retard innovation. We briefly review expressions of the thesis to show that they reduce to the allegation that disagreements over enforceable patent scope and/or validity harm innovation. The Selden automobile patent is alleged to have been such a patent. We review the evidence of commercial development during the Selden patent term and show that although there was disagreement as to the scope and validity of Selden’s patent claims, there is no evidence that innovation was retarded. We show that Henry Ford and others relied on “freedom to operate” analyses of the Selden patent claims that unambiguously demonstrated their narrow scope. We reexamine archival evidence and cite new primary sources, in particular the legal Opinion given to Ford on the Selden patent to provide a more accurate account than hitherto published of how Ford made his analysis. It was this analysis embodied in the legal Opinion that gave the Ford Motor Company the confidence to publicly indemnify all its customers from infringement liability. Suit for infringement of the Selden patent was brought against the Company, and Ford ultimately prevailed. The Selden patent was licensed, not to create a patent pool, cross-licensing agreement or cartel, but a “patent enforcement collective”; the Selden case should be known as the exemplary instance of how freedom-to-operate analysis can provide the confidence to invest and develop business.

AB - A current refrain in patent policy discourse is that “overly-broad” patents of “dubious validity” retard innovation. We briefly review expressions of the thesis to show that they reduce to the allegation that disagreements over enforceable patent scope and/or validity harm innovation. The Selden automobile patent is alleged to have been such a patent. We review the evidence of commercial development during the Selden patent term and show that although there was disagreement as to the scope and validity of Selden’s patent claims, there is no evidence that innovation was retarded. We show that Henry Ford and others relied on “freedom to operate” analyses of the Selden patent claims that unambiguously demonstrated their narrow scope. We reexamine archival evidence and cite new primary sources, in particular the legal Opinion given to Ford on the Selden patent to provide a more accurate account than hitherto published of how Ford made his analysis. It was this analysis embodied in the legal Opinion that gave the Ford Motor Company the confidence to publicly indemnify all its customers from infringement liability. Suit for infringement of the Selden patent was brought against the Company, and Ford ultimately prevailed. The Selden patent was licensed, not to create a patent pool, cross-licensing agreement or cartel, but a “patent enforcement collective”; the Selden case should be known as the exemplary instance of how freedom-to-operate analysis can provide the confidence to invest and develop business.

KW - Overly-broad patent, dubious validity, bad patents, Freedom to Operate analysis, Selden, Ford, Ford Motor Co., automobile, ALAM, Brayton, gas-engine, Otto

U2 - https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2801309

DO - https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2801309

M3 - Paper

SP - 1

EP - 40

T2 - Academy of Management Annual Meeting

Y2 - 30 July 2021 through 3 August 2021

ER -